Martin v. City of Richmond

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Charles R. Breyer United States District Court Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

Attorneys at Law

Complaint Filed: September 29, 2006

Trial Date: Not Set

Plaintiff Kevin Martin ("Plaintiff") and Defendant City of Richmond ("City"), through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, the Court issued a Case Management and Settlement Conference Order scheduling deadlines by which the parties must complete discovery, bring dispositive motions, and stipulate to conditional collective action certification.

WHEREAS, on June 22, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation conditionally certifying this action as a collective action for purposes of discovery and trial. Under the stipulation, the parties agreed that this action should proceed on a representative basis and further agreed to randomly select representative plaintiffs by July 17, 2009.

WHEREAS, on July 15, 2009, the parties randomly selected representative plaintiffs for each subgroup identified in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

WHEREAS, the stipulation to proceed as a collective action authorizes the City to propound all discovery mechanisms upon each of the 16 representative plaintiffs, and authorizes Plaintiff to depose up to 10 defense witnesses in addition to any expert or 30(b)(6) witnesses designated by the City.

WHEREAS, on July 30, 2009, the Court approved the parties' stipulation and proposed order modifying the Case Management and Settlement Conference Order previously entered on April 21, 2009. That Order essentially provided the parties with an additional two months in order to complete discovery and bring dispositive motions.

WHEREAS, to date, the parties have completed a significant portion of the discovery contemplated in their conditional collective action certification stipulation. However, due to factors outside of their control (stemming mainly from issues involving witness availability), the parties will require an additional month in order to complete discovery and, if necessary, prepare dispositive motions. Such an extension will also allow the parties to continue their informal settlement discussions and, hopefully, resolve this matter, before the filing of any dispositive motions.

Attorneys at Law

THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE THAT THE COURT'S CASE MANAGEMENT AND SETTLEMENT ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.